Rick Rosner On, 36: Trump, Inflation, Gas Prices, Polling, and the 2026 U.S. Midterm Elections
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Personal SubStack
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/09/16
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss rising gasoline and diesel prices, renewed inflation, Donald Trump’s approval ratings, polling methodology, and the proposed $5,000 “Trump dividend.” They examine economic responsibility, voter perceptions, polling frequency, legal questions, and the competitive political environment surrounding the 2026 U.S. midterms elections.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Economic Pressure, Fuel Prices, and the Midterms
Rick Rosner: Today is Tuesday, September 15, 2026, exactly seven weeks until the U.S. midterm elections on November 3. In my view, Trump has had a disastrous summer of bad decisions. The U.S. war with Iran began on February 28. Gas prices have now remained above $4 a gallon for months. The national average today is about $4.33 a gallon.
If you live in Europe, that might not sound like a lot because people in some European countries are accustomed to paying the equivalent of substantially more per gallon. At $2 per litre, for example, the equivalent would be about $7.57 per U.S. gallon. But Americans are used to much lower gasoline prices. The United States has a long history of policies that support both fossil-fuel production and relatively inexpensive fuel consumption. Trump has repeatedly talked about bringing gasoline prices down toward $2 a gallon, and we are still far from that.
Diesel, which is crucial for trucking, agriculture, construction, and transporting goods, is also extraordinarily expensive. The national average was about $6.27 a gallon on September 15. That compares with roughly $3.52 in January, an increase of about 78 percent, not 81 percent. People are feeling the pinch, and they are pissed.
Inflation and Presidential Responsibility
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How much is inflation adding to that economic pressure?
Rosner: Inflation is also back in the mid-threes. The Consumer Price Index rose 3.4 percent over the 12 months ending in August 2026, with gasoline prices contributing substantially to the monthly increase. People do not like that. But are they going to be as pissed at Trump, in terms of how they vote, as they were with Biden? Probably not.
My argument would be that Trump bears substantial responsibility for current U.S. economic conditions, although presidential responsibility for inflation, fuel prices, and the broader economy is never exclusive.
By comparison, Biden governed through the aftermath of a worldwide supply-chain disruption associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 also contributed to major disruptions in global energy markets. Those are different economic circumstances, so simply comparing inflation rates under the two presidents does not establish how much responsibility either president personally bears.
Trump’s Approval Rating
Jacobsen: Has Trump’s approval rating moved much despite those conditions?
Rosner: Trump’s approval rating has remained remarkably stable in recent weeks. Silver Bulletin’s average was around 38 percent in early September, although individual polls vary considerably. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week put his approval at 35 percent. Silver Bulletin reported a net approval rating of about negative 19.5 points in its September update. Even as controversies accumulate, a substantial core of supporters continues to stick with him.
Polling and the Midterm Environment
Jacobsen: What should we make of the polling environment this close to the election?
Rosner: There are seven weeks to go, and early voting is beginning soon in some states. One thing worth watching is the composition of the polling averages. If you look at Silver Bulletin, a polling aggregator, it combines polls and weights them by factors including pollster quality, sample size, recency, and frequency.
By my count, right-leaning pollsters have been producing substantially more presidential-approval surveys recently than many neutral or left-leaning organizations. That matters because frequent polling can affect the raw mix of surveys people see, although Silver Bulletin specifically adjusts its model for pollster effects, quality, recency, sample size, and how frequently an organization polls. So it would be too strong to say that simply publishing more polls translates directly into an equivalent change in the polling average.
Polling Frequency and Public Perception
Jacobsen: Can higher polling frequency still shape public perception?
Rosner: It can still affect the political information environment. News organizations look at aggregators such as Silver Bulletin and report their averages. Most individual voters are not nerdy enough, or at least not as nerdy as I am, to look at presidential polls every day and examine which organizations are producing them.
Rasmussen, for example, polls frequently. Other major organizations conduct national political surveys less often. The New York Times/Siena College polling partnership does not poll presidential approval every day, while Reuters/Ipsos conducts surveys much more frequently. The important point is that polling organizations differ significantly in methodology, sampling populations, frequency, and house effects. Aggregators attempt to compensate for those differences rather than simply taking an unweighted average.
The Proposed $5,000 “Trump Dividend”
Jacobsen: What about Trump’s promise of $5,000 payments?
Rosner: There is a lot of bullshit going on, including what I regard as bullshit from Trump. He has promised a $5,000 “Trump dividend” to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate. Trump announced the proposal on September 9. He has not identified a fully developed funding mechanism, and Congress would need to approve it.
The proposal would cost well over $1 trillion, and Republicans in Congress themselves have raised questions about how it would be financed. Trump has floated other large direct-payment proposals before, including proposed DOGE-related and tariff-funded dividends, but those earlier proposals did not result in the promised payments.
So describing the new $5,000 payment as an established future benefit would be inaccurate. At this stage, it is a campaign proposal whose financing, legislative pathway, and eventual implementation remain uncertain.
There was the proposed tariff-revenue check and another proposed payment. One was supposed to be around $5,000, and another around $2,000. Those checks never arrived. Trump has floated several direct-payment proposals but has not implemented them.
There is also a legal distinction worth making. Federal law prohibits paying or offering to pay someone specifically for registering or voting in a federal election. A campaign promise of a broadly available government benefit is not automatically the same thing as illegal vote-buying, although Trump’s decision to condition the proposed $5,000 dividend explicitly on Republicans winning Congress has raised obvious legal and ethical questions.
It is also unclear whether he could deliver the payment. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said congressional authorization would be required. Estimates put the cost at roughly $1.2 trillion to $1.35 trillion.
Possible Electoral Effects
Jacobsen: Could the promise still affect voters?
Rosner: Maybe at the margins. At least some evidence shows voters are paying attention. A recent Economist/YouGov survey found opinion almost evenly divided, with 43 percent supporting the proposed payments and 45 percent opposing them.
As for the midterms, Democrats have a plausible path to gaining control of the House, while the Senate contest is more structurally difficult. I would describe the House as competitive rather than a certainty. That is politics right now.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
